DAVID HUNTER MILLER, of the New York Bar, technical adviser to the American Commission at the Paris Peace Conference
UNTRAVELED air routes and undeveloped resources in the Arctic are now being thought of as valuable for the future, even the near future. For this, Mr. Stefansson is perhaps more responsible than any other one individual. That the French, in 1763, gave up Canada rather than Guadaloupe to the British, who accepted the former instead of the latter with hesitating reluctance, and that the judgment of Seward regarding Alaska had to wait a generation or so for its vindication, have been some of the effective historical arguments of the practical explorer, who is so often deemed merely a prejudiced dreamer.
The area of the earth's surface north of the Arctic Circle (66° 30′, as usually drawn; strictly it is 66° 31 ⅔′) comprises over eight million square miles. What States have sovereignty over this vast region? To what countries are we to assign the known and the unknown?
Let us think of the Arctic as in part known land, in part known sea and in part unexplored, and thus let us look at it on the accompanying map. This map, like most maps of the Arctic, looks "queer." It seems different from maps of regions with which we are more familiar. The reason is at once simple and perplexing. It is common learning that every ordinary map of any considerable portion of the earth is necessarily at best only an approximation of correctness, because it is a flat picture of the convex surface of an oblate spheroid; and an accurate flat picture of a convex surface is impossible. Then, too, on the usual map of the United States, for example, we draw parallels of latitude. We know that these imaginary lines of latitude run around the world; but on such a map they are drawn as straight, or perhaps as slightly curved lines, going from one side of the sheet to the other. But on the Polar map these same straight or slightly curved lines of latitude become circles around a central north; and it is this change that gives us to pause and to wonder...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The Arctic is rich in natural resources and lies at the epicenter of a rapidly changing climate -- and it is time the United States paid more attention to the region.
THE recent Imperial Conference gave some consideration -- at the instance primarily of Australia -- to the question of British policy in the Antarctic. Political rights in the Antarctic are much less complicated and much less important than those involved in the Arctic, with which the writer dealt in FOREIGN AFFAIRS for October, 1925.
THE mineral geography of the future has been etched in the earth by recent industrial development. Minerals constitute only a part of what is termed "the natural resource problem," but they furnish a defined basis for an inductive approach to the broader problem.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.